I'm not the one making the claims, I'm pointing out how troll-girl DOESN'T have facts to back up her claims.
She was claiming that Applixware was not going to make Applixware 5.0 FreeBSD native. Claimed the same level of 'internal knowledge' of what was going on at Applixware's makers that she claims on the 'shrinking BSD numbers'. Yet, if I pay $99.95, I can get 5.0 of Applixware. Now, it may be "borken out of the box", but it *DID* ship.
The "*BSD is dying" troll trys the handwaving arguments again.
Most analysts agree that *BSD is dying. What analysts? Where? Who? Do you have some facts here?
No facts? Sorry troll-girl, but repeating a mantra over and over '*BSD is dying' doesn't make it so.
The same forces that are killing *BSD are the same ones that hurt SCO Really? Care to explain this further?
SCO used to charge extra for a TCP/IP stack. And extra for a compiler. And extra for, well, everything.
Free/Net/OpenBSD do not charge ANYTHING....you can DL 2 floppies and bootstrap a system off the old AOL 3.0 floppies sent to you.
Looks like the cost issue of SCO doesn't exist with BSD. So either you had some other idea in mind toll-girl, or you are making up stuff as you go along.
Oh boy. The "*BSD is dying" troll is trying something new.
Isn't it funny when a marginal magazine goes out of business They just STARTED publishing their magazine, and the troll wants readers to believe the magazine is going out of business.
Otherwise, she is up to the same old tricks. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Yet...no proof of this. Obviously she beleives this because she has data....yet she can't be bothered to share.
She makes up data: *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. Really? Considering the number of acedemic systems running BSD on VAX hardware, VS the total number of X86/PPC/MIPS/etc machines running BSD today, that looks like a INCREASE, not a decrease.
A nice twist this time Troll-girl with the 'spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead.' line.
But, given your anti-BSD past, your unwillingness to spend 'a penny subscribing' is not suprising.
Ohhh, boy. the "*BSD is dying" troll is trying something different.
Nice try girl, but for something to go OUT of business, it has to BE a business. And NetBSD is an international collaborative effort of a large group of people, to produce a freely available and redistributable UNIX-like operating system, NetBSD.
1) facts or links to back her claims: No. But vague finger-pointing at 'special reports' from IDC, Gardner or even Netcraft. This Troll has *YET* to produce any of these reports.
2) out right lies "when you need something enterprise ready with a world-wide corporate support structure" What, BSDi is chopped liver? Last time *I* checked, they sold 24X7 support oin both hardware and software. If you have a phone line/internet connection and FedEX you are supported....if you are willing to pay.
Hey troll-girl, feel free to come back when you have facts.
They take (BSD allows this though), but they don't give back. Really?
Here they talk about Net and FreeBSD getting code back from Apple.
How about wsanchez@FreeBSD.org who works for Apple and has committ privilage to FreeBSD? (as per FreeBSD's own web site.
Looks like Apple money *IS* being used to support BSD.
Free hardware, although it is nice, if you consider the time needed to get said card working, you are paying a $$$ per hour rate approaching $0 an hour.
Most of the people doing 'the opensource thing' are in it to scratch thier own itch. Mostly it is to have it work for themselves. Sometimes it is giving credit.
If they ask for hardware, and have done something for you in the past, give them more hardware so these past workers can be your future workers. Stroke thier ego with a credit or 2 in a file. Such gestures can only effect your bottom line in a positive manner.
But, consider making your drivers under a license that is useable by EVERYONE. I note how you mention Linux, and ignored BSD. By slapping a GPL license on your code, or some other license not compatibile with BSD, you lock out the BSD users, forcing someone to re-write the driver so it *IS* compatible with BSD licencing. If you are worried about your competition 'taking' your driver code, guess what....the GPL or any other license does not STOP someone from 'taking' your ideas as expressed in code. So why not make sure your code works with the 20% of the open source OS market you otherwise ignore if you don't license your code under a BSD compatible license.
A whole bunch of people think Linux? Are people so un-educated that they don't know about BSD? Open Sourced OSes are *MORE* than GNU/Linux.
From the person who asked the question, showing his lack of knowledge:
"Robert LeBlanc, Vice President, Software Strategy, Software Solutions Division says both that IBM would open source any part of AIX and that we would be better off taking bits and pieces and the expertise that IBM bring along with it.
IBM is committed to Open Source where they think it makes a good business choice.
Yet, a whole group of people see Open Source and jump to the conclusion that means Linux. IBM has contributed to the BSD project (via the whistlejet)
It seems to me we have the offer on the plate from IBM to create a new joined project to bring Linux up another level if we can find a way from AIX. Surely we must take them up on this?"
What if IBM writes code that EVERYONE can use? Be they BSD, Linux, SCO, etc? Does this make them non "Open Source"? If IBM is truly an Open Source company they should consider making their code work with EVERYONE.
What is better to encourage IBM to do?
Ask them to release code for Linux, and pretend that is Open Source, *OR* ask them to make sure what they release is useable by EVERYONE who believes in Open Source code?
In addition, a 1-800 number call from a pay phone gets the 1-800 vendor more than the normal 0.05-0.15 per min charges, but also a $0.35 set up charge.
Perhaps Hydrogen wasn't as dumb an idea as it seems.
We drive about in cars filled with nasty exploding or burnable gasoline. You take a risk with any form of energy, or transport, and you try to pick the best you can. Go back to 1960 detroit and say "plastics are the future, or and so are carbon" and you'd get laughed out by the engineers. Or, how about the concept that the lowest voltage you can effectivly switch a transistor for computers was 5 volts. We today may think hydrogen is a dumb idea, but it MAY be the way we'll move about in the future.
points out how hydrogen is not what was the inital problem, but how it was the 'skin'.
Code that is put in the public domain or BSD licenced can be absorbed into non-free projects without making any changes publically available, and frequently has been. The GPL essentially says that the right to see and further modify code is more important than the right to keep modifications private
Then please explain why the GPLed Linux distro that shipped with the Virgin Webplayer was under a non-GPL and very restrictive license? Or, why you can't get the source code when you ask for it?
The GPL didn't prevent Linux from being all locked up by the 'evil' IAN or Virgin.
What is the point of using the GPL or any license if you are unwilling to back it with action?
If you look at the history of Jobs/Apple, you can find where Jobs felt the 'borrowing' for the Lisa an Mac of the Xerox star was fine and wonderful.
Yet, when others do the same 'borrowing', Apple/Jobs get upset.
And, at this time, Apple *CLAIMS* the themes in question are their IP. This has not been decided by a judge, so Apple *MAY* not own said IP. Take it to a judge....
Themes.org had a choice: Stand on the principal on 'this is a protected form of expression' and go bankrupt, not to mention creating a case history of an Apple win (not on merits, but because Apple's $4 billion in the bank to spend on lawyers) *OR* publically pull these themes and let a whole bunch of ppl thump their chests over the injustice, and a smaller subset to choose not to buy Apple products.
Themes.org took the route that allows them to remain, not to mention being the easist.
If you want Themes.org to fight this, give them a legal war-chest for the fight. Oh, and be sure to pay for the defense of the authors of the disputed themes.
(The big thing in this article is about how IBM is releasing new code under an Open Source license. The believe of Micro$oft being troubled plays well on/.)
ESR talks about how wonderful Open Source is. ESR talks at LinuxWorld and The Bazzar about how BSD is a fine open source product, and should get far more press than it does. (or how the BSD Kernel is better written code overall)
Yet, rather than talk about how Open Source OSes will become dominate in the market, ESR chooses to promote only Linux. Fetchmail comes in Linux pre-built binaries, and linux formatted packages...no BSD specific versions.
ESR is willing to be politically neutral on KDE/GNOME. ESR is willing to talk about how BSD needs more press, then uses Linux as the generic term for Open Source OS. If your position is as a 'leading' Open Source advocate, then choose to only mention BSD rarely, what kind of "open source OS advocate" are you?
If you are going to talk the talk about how BSD should have more promotion, why won't you walk the walk? ESR, why do you not promote BSD more, given you are a "leading Open Source" advocate? Lead by example, rather than empty rhetoric.
Or are you a good corporate shill for VA Research^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLinux?
This is to be expected, given the talent from Newton division that moved in mass to Palm. (32 resigned all on a friday, and went to palm after getting Steved)
Those Ex-Newton engineers are going to work VERY hard to produce a product that they can point to and say "See Steve? Computers *CAN* exist without a keyboard" Perhaps while inserting said palm into an orfice of Mr. Jobs. Therefore out of the gate, the product should have more stability and code quality than the average.0 release.
Hopefully that drive on their part will work to deliver a product better than the palm, and better than a Newton 2100.
Expect the new Palm to be more Newton-like, with a re-written Rosetta handwritting engine. (Translation - built in printed handwriting)
(Why would the founders leave and do handspring? Simple. Their baby, graffitti was going to be replaced. The graffitti was on the wall for them.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not the one making the claims, I'm pointing out how troll-girl DOESN'T have facts to back up her claims.
She was claiming that Applixware was not going to make Applixware 5.0 FreeBSD native. Claimed the same level of 'internal knowledge' of what was going on at Applixware's makers that she claims on the 'shrinking BSD numbers'. Yet, if I pay $99.95, I can get 5.0 of Applixware. Now, it may be "borken out of the box", but it *DID* ship.
No, I was not joking. It was an eaiser link than this web interface to the CVS logs.
But, be my guest. Download the CVS of the BSD tree and look through the code. Or go to http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ and look for yourself.
Or to NetBSD and see the one change by Mr. Sanchez. do a search for wsanchez
The choice of link does not change the fact that Apple HAS contributed back to BSD.
The "*BSD is dying" troll trys the handwaving arguments again.
Most analysts agree that *BSD is dying.
What analysts? Where? Who? Do you have some facts here?
No facts? Sorry troll-girl, but repeating a mantra over and over '*BSD is dying' doesn't make it so.
The same forces that are killing *BSD are the same ones that hurt SCO
Really? Care to explain this further?
SCO used to charge extra for a TCP/IP stack. And extra for a compiler. And extra for, well, everything.
Free/Net/OpenBSD do not charge ANYTHING....you can DL 2 floppies and bootstrap a system off the old AOL 3.0 floppies sent to you.
Looks like the cost issue of SCO doesn't exist with BSD. So either you had some other idea in mind toll-girl, or you are making up stuff as you go along.
Oh boy. The "*BSD is dying" troll is trying something new.
Isn't it funny when a marginal magazine goes out of business
They just STARTED publishing their magazine, and the troll wants readers to believe the magazine is going out of business.
Otherwise, she is up to the same old tricks. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Yet...no proof of this. Obviously she beleives this because she has data....yet she can't be bothered to share.
She makes up data: *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. Really? Considering the number of acedemic systems running BSD on VAX hardware, VS the total number of X86/PPC/MIPS/etc machines running BSD today, that looks like a INCREASE, not a decrease.
A nice twist this time Troll-girl with the 'spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead.' line.
But, given your anti-BSD past, your unwillingness to spend 'a penny subscribing' is not suprising.
Apple computer corp seems to Think Different.
Mac OS X is based on BSD, and iMacs don't rack well for back rooms. So Apple must think selling BSD based systems will be profitable.
Ohhh, boy. the "*BSD is dying" troll is trying something different.
Nice try girl, but for something to go OUT of business, it has to BE a business. And NetBSD is an international collaborative effort of a large group of people, to produce a freely available and redistributable UNIX-like operating system, NetBSD.
Why don't you try some facts, troll-girl.
Oh boy.... its the 'BSD is dying' troll.
Lets see:
1) facts or links to back her claims: No. But vague finger-pointing at 'special reports' from IDC, Gardner or even Netcraft. This Troll has *YET* to produce any of these reports.
2) out right lies "when you need something enterprise ready with a world-wide corporate support structure" What, BSDi is chopped liver? Last time *I* checked, they sold 24X7 support oin both hardware and software. If you have a phone line/internet connection and FedEX you are supported....if you are willing to pay.
Hey troll-girl, feel free to come back when you have facts.
They take (BSD allows this though), but they don't give back.
Really?
Here they talk about Net and FreeBSD getting code back from Apple.
How about wsanchez@FreeBSD.org who works for Apple and has committ privilage to FreeBSD? (as per FreeBSD's own web site.
Looks like Apple money *IS* being used to support BSD.
From:
http://www.daemonnews.org/200101/bsdmag.html
Mr. Suzuki is always looking for writers, especially for the OpenBSD area which are hard to find.
If you feel OpenBSD writing isn't happening...step up to the plate.
Free hardware, although it is nice, if you consider the time needed to get said card working, you are paying a $$$ per hour rate approaching $0 an hour.
Most of the people doing 'the opensource thing' are in it to scratch thier own itch. Mostly it is to have it work for themselves. Sometimes it is giving credit.
If they ask for hardware, and have done something for you in the past, give them more hardware so these past workers can be your future workers. Stroke thier ego with a credit or 2 in a file. Such gestures can only effect your bottom line in a positive manner.
But, consider making your drivers under a license that is useable by EVERYONE. I note how you mention Linux, and ignored BSD. By slapping a GPL license on your code, or some other license not compatibile with BSD, you lock out the BSD users, forcing someone to re-write the driver so it *IS* compatible with BSD licencing. If you are worried about your competition 'taking' your driver code, guess what....the GPL or any other license does not STOP someone from 'taking' your ideas as expressed in code. So why not make sure your code works with the 20% of the open source OS market you otherwise ignore if you don't license your code under a BSD compatible license.
Apple exchanged stock for the concepts they saw at Xerox--- they stole *nothing*
Really? Then explain why Xerox filed a lawsuit over the matter.
The *TRUTH* is what you state is part of a settlement. Why would Apple give up stock, unless forced to?
The Micorsoft $150 million was a settlement...out of court.
Amazing, the BSD troll now has knowledge of the NSA!
*yawn*
Come back with proof!
BSD is a mess from a security viewpoint
Compared to what OS?
And were asked to provide links, to provide proof.
Yet, all you do is keep repeating the same things over and over.
When you have some links to back up these claims, please post them.
Never used lp in native redhat pre 7.0? That is BSD code.
Sendmail is another example of BSD derived code.
Oh, how about the TCP/IP stack? the include file for in_systm.h says "Original taken from BSD UNIX 4.3-RENO"
If you'd bother to grep for BSD in the linux kernel, you'd find that BSD is core to Linux.
And you 'use' a "BSD" program to get to slashdot. Yup, the OpenBSD firewall that is (was) protecting the site.
A whole bunch of people think Linux? Are people so un-educated that they don't know about BSD? Open Sourced OSes are *MORE* than GNU/Linux.
From the person who asked the question, showing his lack of knowledge:
"Robert LeBlanc, Vice President, Software Strategy, Software Solutions Division says both that IBM would open source any part of AIX and that we would be better off taking bits and pieces and the expertise that IBM bring along with it.
IBM is committed to Open Source where they think it makes a good business choice.
Yet, a whole group of people see Open Source and jump to the conclusion that means Linux. IBM has contributed to the BSD project (via the whistlejet)
It seems to me we have the offer on the plate from IBM to create a new joined project to bring Linux up another level if we can find a way from AIX. Surely we must take them up on this?"
What if IBM writes code that EVERYONE can use? Be they BSD, Linux, SCO, etc? Does this make them non "Open Source"? If IBM is truly an Open Source company they should consider making their code work with EVERYONE.
What is better to encourage IBM to do?
Ask them to release code for Linux, and pretend that is Open Source, *OR* ask them to make sure what they release is useable by EVERYONE who believes in Open Source code?
In addition, a 1-800 number call from a pay phone gets the 1-800 vendor more than the normal 0.05-0.15 per min charges, but also a $0.35 set up charge.
Perhaps Hydrogen wasn't as dumb an idea as it seems.
We drive about in cars filled with nasty exploding or burnable gasoline. You take a risk with any form of energy, or transport, and you try to pick the best you can. Go back to 1960 detroit and say "plastics are the future, or and so are carbon" and you'd get laughed out by the engineers. Or, how about the concept that the lowest voltage you can effectivly switch a transistor for computers was 5 volts. We today may think hydrogen is a dumb idea, but it MAY be the way we'll move about in the future.
points out how hydrogen is not what was the inital problem, but how it was the 'skin'.
Marquette University is the repository for the works of his estate. He was to spend a year teaching at MU, but died b4 doing this.
Odds are MU will allow access to these items in exchange for $.
When in town for gen-con, walk up 10 blocks and visit MU. You might be able to take a look at the collection.
Code that is put in the public domain or BSD licenced can be absorbed into non-free projects without making any changes publically available, and frequently has been. The GPL essentially says that the right to see and further modify code is more important than the right to keep modifications private
Then please explain why the GPLed Linux distro that shipped with the Virgin Webplayer was under a non-GPL and very restrictive license? Or, why you can't get the source code when you ask for it?
The GPL didn't prevent Linux from being all locked up by the 'evil' IAN or Virgin.
What is the point of using the GPL or any license if you are unwilling to back it with action?
in a long time that did not 'borrow' heavly from some older "public domain" story...tarzan, Aladin, etc?
Most of the story line you can find in many old stories....but I am un-aware of any where the selfish are turned into a llama.
If you look at the history of Jobs/Apple, you can find where Jobs felt the 'borrowing' for the Lisa an Mac of the Xerox star was fine and wonderful.
Yet, when others do the same 'borrowing', Apple/Jobs get upset.
And, at this time, Apple *CLAIMS* the themes in question are their IP. This has not been decided by a judge, so Apple *MAY* not own said IP. Take it to a judge....
Themes.org had a choice: Stand on the principal on 'this is a protected form of expression' and go bankrupt, not to mention creating a case history of an Apple win (not on merits, but because Apple's $4 billion in the bank to spend on lawyers) *OR* publically pull these themes and let a whole bunch of ppl thump their chests over the injustice, and a smaller subset to choose not to buy Apple products.
Themes.org took the route that allows them to remain, not to mention being the easist.
If you want Themes.org to fight this, give them a legal war-chest for the fight. Oh, and be sure to pay for the defense of the authors of the disputed themes.
And where does ORBS obtain the authority to probe *MY* machine?
What right does ORBS have in 'walking around my house and checking to see if I have open doors/open windows'?
(The big thing in this article is about how IBM is releasing new code under an Open Source license. The believe of Micro$oft being troubled plays well on /.)
ESR talks about how wonderful Open Source is. ESR talks at LinuxWorld and The Bazzar about how BSD is a fine open source product, and should get far more press than it does. (or how the BSD Kernel is better written code overall)
Yet, rather than talk about how Open Source OSes will become dominate in the market, ESR chooses to promote only Linux. Fetchmail comes in Linux pre-built binaries, and linux formatted packages...no BSD specific versions.
ESR is willing to be politically neutral on KDE/GNOME. ESR is willing to talk about how BSD needs more press, then uses Linux as the generic term for Open Source OS. If your position is as a 'leading' Open Source advocate, then choose to only mention BSD rarely, what kind of "open source OS advocate" are you?
If you are going to talk the talk about how BSD should have more promotion, why won't you walk the walk? ESR, why do you not promote BSD more, given you are a "leading Open Source" advocate? Lead by example, rather than empty rhetoric.
Or are you a good corporate shill for VA Research^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLinux?
This is to be expected, given the talent from Newton division that moved in mass to Palm. (32 resigned all on a friday, and went to palm after getting Steved)
.0 release.
Those Ex-Newton engineers are going to work VERY hard to produce a product that they can point to and say "See Steve? Computers *CAN* exist without a keyboard" Perhaps while inserting said palm into an orfice of Mr. Jobs. Therefore out of the gate, the product should have more stability and code quality than the average
Hopefully that drive on their part will work to deliver a product better than the palm, and better than a Newton 2100.
Expect the new Palm to be more Newton-like, with a re-written Rosetta handwritting engine. (Translation - built in printed handwriting)
(Why would the founders leave and do handspring? Simple. Their baby, graffitti was going to be replaced. The graffitti was on the wall for them.)